Compare and Contrast Absalom and Achitophel and 2 Samuel
Introduction
This paper gives a critical and in-depth analysis of Absalom and Achitophel. It does this by comparing it to the story of King David which is recorded in the second book of Samuel of the bible. This book presents a story parallel to King David’s. It was written by John Dryden in 1681. In deed, Absalom and Achitophel is a political satire which alludes to the bible to unveil the succession controversies which confronted England towards the end of the rein of King Charles II.
In the first section which was solely written by Dryden himself, he gives an account of the Exclusion faced by England between the year 1678 and 1681. As he records, it was a very difficult time in the history of England when deliberate efforts were made to bar James from succeeding King Charles II on the grounds that he was a Roman Catholic. In the second section, the poem discusses about the events which unfolded in this kingdom in 1682. These include attacks on Elkanah Settle and Thomas Shadwell. As already hinted, this poem is parallel to the stories recorded in the book of Second Samuel. The following are some of the major similarities and differences between them:
As already highlighted, this political satire is paralleled to the Bible. Most of the stories here are similar to the biblical stories in the book of II Samuel which explores the story of King David especially during his advanced stages. The following are the similarities between them:
First, King David is synonymous to King Charles II. They have a lot of similar traits, actions and achievements. They were at the throne of leadership in their respective territories. King David was the ninth and last born son of Jesse. He became the second king of Israel after being chosen by God Himself. His rein was so successful because he managed to restore peace in the kingdom by developing cordial; diplomatic ties with his neighbors. As a king, he became so popular. Thus, he managed to secure hundreds of mistresses although he was legitimately married to Michal who was the queen. Despite this, he was unfortunate to have a legitimate son who would take the throne after him since kingship position was hereditary. Therefore, when he was approaching his death, there had to be a crisis on who would exactly succeed him. This became a very emotive issue since he never had a legitimate son who would rightfully succeed him.
On the other hand, King Charles II was also the King of England who ruled as a very powerful leader. Just like his counterpart, David, he was a polygamist. He had a lot of mistresses whom he thought would make him achieve happiness in life. Although they lived at different times, they preferred to have many wives. In fact, the author argues that during King David’s time, ‘polygamy was accepted and ordained by God.’ Meaning, it was not an offence. The other similarity between these leaders is that they never had legitimate sons who would succeed them even though it was a tradition that they had to be succeeded by their legitimate sons. Because of this, he had to face the same situation David faced when they were coming to the end of their regimes. Having no legitimate son made him face difficulties on how to pass the leadership throne to anyone. Although they all had numerous children, they were not qualified to assume the leadership throne from them since they were all illegitimately born. They were unlucky to have their own sons with their real wives who were also serving as distinguished queens of their respective territories. This necessitated a succession crisis characterized by panic.
The second similarity between this story and the bible is seen in the kings’ own sons- Absalom and James Scott. Absalom was King David’s son with his concubine called Maacha, who was the daughter of Talmai. Scott was King Charles’ son with his concubine called Lucy Walter. As first born sons for these kings, the two guys were supposed to assume the leadership throne from their respective fathers upon their demise. However, as events unfolded, this would not come to be since they were not qualified to succeed their fathers as kings. Reason? They were, by law and tradition not regarded as legitimate children to these great kings. On his part, Absalom was the most adored son of David. David loved this boy because of his admirable qualities. First, he was beautiful and represented his father’s qualities during his hey days as a youth. Everyone cherished him because of his charming natural charisma, beauty and courage. The same applies to Scott who gained a lot of popularity because of his strong support for Protestantism.
Both Prince Scott and Absalom were disappointed when they realized that they could not become kings. Therefore, they forfeited their loyalty and patriotism to organize rebellions against the state. This, in their opinion, would enable them to do all that they could to become kings. Therefore, after receiving support from his great allies such as Shime and Corah, Absalom conspired with Achitophel to oust his father from his kingship position.
‘In the course of time, Absalom provided himself with a chariot and horses and with fifty men to run’ (2 Samuel 15:1). ‘Absalom behaved in this way toward all the Israelites who came to the king asking for justice, and so he stole the hearts of the people of Israel’ (2 Samuel 15:6).
On the other hand, Scott also took advantage of his position s a nobleman to oust his uncle, James who had succeeded his father to become the subsequent king of England. Later, they faced the same ordeal when they were killed for being disloyal and thwarting the stability of the kingdom. Whereas Absalom was murdered against his father’s wish, Scott was later executed in 1685 for his unsuccessful Monmouth Rebellion. He contravened English law for purporting to be the legitimate king during the time of his uncle.
The third similarity found in these texts is the nature of political climate in Israel and England during the time of King David and King Charles II respectively. In the bible, the Israelites were being ruled by Kings. After King Soul, there came King David whose succession caused a lot of panic to the territory. Although the Jews we stringent in the observation of the Mosaic Law, they decided to be given a king to enable them be like other nations which had human leaders who could be approached whenever they had problems. As a chosen people, they believed to be too special to any other group of people in the whole world. This is the same belief which was held in England by the Jebusites. Although the Israelites were initially demanding to be given a king, they later changed to start questioning the powers of these kings. After demanding the replacement of King David because of his advanced age, they later hanged their minds and decided to recall him to rule them again. Meaning, they were unstable in their decisions. The same applies to the English people who were now making the use of parliament and the House of Commons to determine the destiny of political leadership in the country.
Just the same way the priests had plotted to oust the king, a bill was introduced in the English parliament to exclude James of England from rising to power. This was meant to exclude him from succeeding his brother who had no legitimate son to succeed him. This demonstrates that they were disorganized and disloyal people. They were interested in changing regimes whenever they felt like. They were not principled persons who would make decisions and stick by them. For instance, this is the very trait demonstrated by Architophel and Shaftesburry. Even after loyally serving King David for a very long time, Architophel decided to betray him by conspiring with Absalom to oust him. Although it was never successful, it was a sign of disloyalty which could not have been committed by him. Shaftsbury also decided to conspire with James to organize for the Monmouth Rebellion. They were supposed to be loyal to the state and serve it well. Hence, they had to prepare to be punished for their offenses. Absalom was killed by his father’s troop who ‘took him, threw him into a big pit in the forest and piled up a large heap of rocks over him’ (2 Samuel 18:17).
Differences
Despite this poem borrowing heavily from the biblical story of King David, they have a lot of differences. In his writings, John Dryden, in their writings, had to incorporate their writing styles in different ways. This would enable him to deliver his message in a simple and clear manner for the readers to comprehend. The following are some of the major differences between them:
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is important to acknowledge that even if Absalom and Achitophel is a political satire, it heavily borrows from the bible. The author paralleled it to the story of King David as recorded in the book of 2 James. These explore much about the crisis which surrounded the succession of this king, who despite making great achievements, never managed to sire a legitimate son. As demonstrated by the author, the same situation confronted England I which King Charles II who was also known to be a polygamist, never got a legitimate son. This caused a lot of tension and anxiety during his succession when several revolts were witnessed led by his own son James Scott. However, this never lasted since it was resolved by punishing the subversive perpetrators. As already pointed out, both Absalom and Scott were executed for causing instability in the kingdom.
In deed, Absalom and Achitophel is a very educative text. It has a lot of information which can be used to enlighten readers on the Exclusion Crisis which greatly destabilized England. Its allusion to the bible makes it to have a sense of reality and enables to appeal to the readers. The use of the biblical allegories was a very prominent stylistic device employed by the writers during the time of these authors. The bible was having a very great influence in Europe at a time when Christianity was gaining popularity. Therefore, people could easily comprehend the political and social issues presented in their writings. In this regard, it recommended as a must read book for anyone who wants to know much about the succession crises which have been a major issue facing hereditary monarchies since time immoral.
